Hello,
only that in Germany, those newspapers are mostly owned and influenced (like the right-wing politicians) by industries and big business. And this does NOT change when a "leftist" party is being elected - as soon as this happens those "news" get really disgusting, and are like B$ as their intentions are obvious.
In Australia, they call the newspapers "truth makers" :yep:

Strange that every day happens exactly as much, as fits into a newspaper...

@Schroeder
" ... Sometimes I think this country [Germany] is full of idiots. ..."

Sometimes ? You are an idiot.
no not really :rotfl2:;)

Greetings,
Catfish

Lead by the upper 1% who will F*ck over everyone else.

If you're so against corporations pushing a political agenda, I am failing to see where the disconnect is. They've been given a green light to do so even more.

I've read the the whole thread carefully, and in the end I believe Mookiemookie has hit it on the head, and Skybirds view is accurate, and Aramikes "informed electorate", will be the next crook when he gets to Washington and stuffs his pockets also.

The United States is not a Democracy at all, but a full blown Anarchy, and most always has been. Who will introduce the first bill to change the name of the "United States of America" to a truthful and proper name.....

People already have their say as individuals. Now they get to have their say as individuals AND as part of a corporation. Their voice counts DOUBLE what yours and mine do?

Then you might as well disband the Democratic party, the ACLU, the NAACP, the AARP, Teamsters Union and any other organization that gives their members both an individual and a group say.

And you ignored it before but what's your take on Corporate owned news organizations like MSNBC? What makes them worthy of exemption from your corporate politicking ban?

What precisely is this "counts double" that you mentioned.

The only count that .. well.. counts is the election and there is still one vote per person. No one is saying that corporations will be getting a vote.

Can you identify the logical fallacy in the above? Because I'm sure August can't!!!

Corporations are nothing more than a group of individuals who collectively conduct business together. Ergo, personal income tax rates DO apply. As do capital gains taxes.

Furthermore, you're missing a very important point - neither I, nor anyone else, is actually supporting corporations having the same rights as a private citizen. That, my friend, would mean something else entirely - the right to actually vote.

Moving on, let me ask you this: would you support the same restrictions being applied to unions? Do you support restricting the publication of books during election seasons? How about censoring the corporate-owned editorial boards of newspapers from endorsing candidates?

Frankly, I think the idea that allowing the exercise of free speech to be EXTENDED to corporations during electoral season is anti-Constitution. The Constitution exists solely to restrict government, and it is quite clear regarding free speech. Hence, corporations needn't have rights extended to them - they should already have those rights.

As an aside, I find this constant demonization of corporations from the left to be ironic and trite - ironic considering that, during this season of the healthcare debate corporations are the primary providers of insurance to workers; and trite considering the hypocrisy involved with ignoring the unions who are somehow allowed a pass on the restrictions so sought after for corporations (although one of them, I believe the SEIU, donated $60 MILLION to Obama).

Finally, need I remind you that our electoral process was chugging along just fine PRIOR to McCain/Feingold? Sure, soft money WAS a problem, but as it affected both parties equally, it really just cancelled itself out. Besides, soft money is still banned (which I agree with).Wait, you're going to take ONE sentence out of a paragraph supporting it, and claim that somehow it defaults itself?

There was a point there, and I clarified it in the following sentences. Either you just missed it or you're intentionally attempting to discredit the idea out of context.

Shame. ;)

If I understood it correctly then he fears that the companies will simply buy the elected guys and get their will this way, regardless who was voted.

And here I was thinking we already had that to some extent. In truth, I'd prefer to hear a senator addressed as "the gentleman from Wal-Mart". At least it would be honest.:shifty:

Unfortunately, there is very little that can be done about this kind of thing in the present system, or any existing large-scale system for that matter. As long as the government has the power to legislate and regulate freely, there will always be people with the means to co-opt or obtain that power, and they won't be any of us.

We already have the solution to these kinds of problems and it's been under our noses for over 230 years - simply eliminate the incentive for business or any cooperative to try to gain control over the power of the state. As long as any significant group is intent on getting power from the government it will eventually succeed.

Lobbyists are a universal pain because their job -their very means of support - is to convince people involved in government legislative, judicial, and executive processes to see things their way, and they will use any methods necessary to do so.

Officials of state, on the other hand, have a lot more to worry about than one agenda. They have a lot of issues to review, evaluate, and vote on, and they must also be concerned with how they are doing in the polls. There are few examples of any representative or senator putting as much thought into a position they hold as the people who lobbied for it, and this is true regardless of platform.

The solution I mentioned is that the Federal government is simply not supposed to have that much power to fight over. That's why its powers were enumerated in the Constitution, and it is why we have the First, Second, and Tenth Amendments. It is also why we have a Bill of Rights, checks and balances, and a difficult Amendment process. It is supposed to be difficult for the Federal government to gain power.

The Supreme Court has often ruled laws and acts that were not strictly constitutional as being so because some kind of workaround that wasn't covered was used. The most infamous of these is the interstate commerce clause. The Federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce and it was always supposed to, but since the term interstate commerce itself wasn't strictly defined in the constitution it was left open to interpretation and all manner of things have been passed under the dubious premise of being concerned with "interstate commerce".

Another favorite workaround is the block or categorical grant. The Federal government doesn't actually have the power to give money to states because that isn't an enumerated power, but states have the power to petition the government for available grants, and grants also get squeezed through interstate commerce, amongst other things.

Obviously, this is not how this is supposed to work. If the Constitution were drafted with the intent of making the Federal government powerful it would have included a "whatever-power-you-may-need-here" clause or a "consult-founding-related-papers and provide-your-own-interpretation" clause, but it didn't. It goes out of its way to do the exact opposite in the 10th Amendment, which basically states; "If we forgot anything, you can't do that, either."

Even so, it didn't take long for people to figure out how to get around it. Special interests will always beat the government if they try, no matter where they come from. Our only saving grace is that they are also competing with each other.

I'd prefer that they just be absent from the process entirely. Why should one comparitively small and wealthy group of people get to make laws for the whole nation? Take away the government's freedom to invent power for itself and you won't have that anymore. A well-written, limiting, and ironclad constitution that can only be changed through a difficult amendment process is our best defense against the plutocracy that has been building for the past two centuries. We just didn't get it quite right the first time:DL

Those of you who have grander visions for government need not have any fear. There are still powers reserved to the states and to the people, so if you have some enlightened theory on governance you are free to practice it at all lower levels of government. I'm sure it will succeed marvelously and we'll all be flocking to your golden streets in short order. In the meantime I think we should at least be free to choose what kind society we live in to the maximum extent possible and I see 50 perfectly good states and over 3000 counties as a decent start.

Why even worry about campaign financing and all this other Washington nonsense? If there's no puppet then we don't have to worry about who's pulling the strings.

@UnderseaLcpl
Outstanding post!

I find this decision troubling and a little confusing.

I'm confused that it still "limits" free speech. If corporations are entities that are entitled to free speech, and that speech cannot be infringed upon, why not allow direct donations to candidates. Giving money is a form of speech, right?

The way I'm reading the decision (and I'm reading it directly, not having it interpreted to me by FOX or MSNBC or any other "news" outlet) the argument was about broadcasts that can reach 50,000 or more people within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election. This is an avenue of expression that large corporations and unions have that the vast percentage of US citizens have no access to. I cannot create an advertisement because I don't have the means. The court seems to equate corporate and union free speech with citizen free speech. Corporations and unions are not equal to citizens--they cannot vote.

The court could have simply ruled that an on-demand program was separate from a broadcast because you choose if, when, and where to watch it. I would have been comfortable with that ruling.

This does not even touch on the questions about how corporations will make these decisions. Do they need shareholder approval to use general funds in such a way? If you are a shareholder and disagree are you going to sell your stake in protest. If you don't are you giving tacit approval to such expressions? What about the interests of multi-national corporations? Will there be restrictions on foreign money used? What if you are in a union and disagree? Do you stop paying your dues? Do you risk leaving the union?

Many corporations and unions in this country won't do more advertising than they did through PAC's. They just don't have the profit margin to do it. I imagine shareholders would frown on the expenditure without a specific political goal in mind. This just leaves the wealthiest corporations and unions to run ads until we all stop watching TV in disgust. It also opens the door to bulk ads in the last 30 days that make a false claim without time for rebuttal. Sure you can sue if it's slanderous, but you've already lost the election.

I would suggest that if corporations are entities entitled to free speech they be subject to the same limits that people are. I am a private citizen. I can donate $2400 (last I checked) to a candidate, $5000 to a PAC, and something like $30000 to a party committee (all of these limits at a per election basis). I believe a corporation as an entity should be held to the same limits. Then they have the same amount of free speech potential as I do.

Finally, does this open the door for corporations as entities to bear arms? Will Exxon build its own navy?

I don't know how this will play out in practice yet, but I may find myself watching little TV this summer and fall.

I don't believe news organizations should be exempt. I guess you forgot when I went off about the Tea Party Protests™ brought to you by Fox News™

I thought you didn't like the tea party folks because they oppose the Democrats evil plans for national domination...